Forum Moderators: martinibuster
I ask you to name all the positive things that MFA's bring us. I will start with my shortlist:
1) MFA's bring huge amounts of money into the system, providing publishers with income.
Without MFA advertisers, many of us would be serving PSA's, making zero cash. Many MFA's just bring money to the system without ever breaking even. The money they lose goes to Google and the publishers. Why complain?
2) Because there are so many MFA advertisers (at least, that is what people are saying) they bring stability to the system and they are filling the gap that is growing because of new publishers entering the Adsense program everyday. We need MFA advertisers just to keep up with the growth of Adsense.
3) MFA's depend less on economical fluctuations.
If there is a crisis in a specific industry, MFA's will go on advertising since they depend less on sales in that industry. And thus publishers will go on making money.
4) MFA's bring knowledge to the system because they are walking the line all the time. Why take the risk of getting banned if you can let an MFA do the job for you?
For once folks, think opportunities, not problems.
Now give me your MFA blessings please!
Google overlooked that is a potential disaster, when users are tired of being fooled.
Though those big figures like total turnover, total advertiser spends, total publisher earnings, total number of clicks etc. may still running well, the internal advertising structure already got fundamental changes in the sense that the pie starts to get a bigger and bigger share from the turnover generated by MFAs and fake clicks.
Without sufficient control, this would turn into an interesting model - imagine that it only got MFAs and fake clicks remaining on the AW/ AS network, what a game....... :P
Yes, let us block by publisher id!
.07 cents for 2 clicks
do you mean .07 $ or was it really 0.07cents?
Yes, let us block by publisher id!
That's a wonderful idea but then you'll probably see some people opening hundreds of accounts.
Genius - There are relatively few hardline MFA gamers, but those talented few are responsible for thousands of throw away sites that are generating millions of dollars a year between them.
They are bidding peanuts on hundreds of thousands of keyword combinations, and milking publishers for cheap clicks like prized holsteins.
Blocking at publisher id would pretty much stop these MFA crankers from constantly generating new sites after the old ones are blocked by the filter.
Conversly, I have built MFA's with Wiki and "auto content" feeds. I do not look to mock the system, just work within the "boundaries"
That type situation falls into the "doesn't add much to the web" category and serves to frustrate or diminishes the web experience of someone who lands on one of those URL's.
If Google wants to allow it to continue in exchange for the revenue it brings in, that's Google's business.
If it generates a good ROI for advertisers that's probably good for us all because it encourages use of the content network and encourages more advertising spending in general. On the other hand, if it causes advertisers to drop out of the content network, that's bad news for the rest of us.
However, I think the negatives are multiplied when the owner of such a site purchases ads via AdWords to send people directly to those pages - often by misleading ad text. That's different than just putting ads on a parked domain page and waiting for someone to happen by.
FarmBoy
MFA's are still on our site but not nearly as they used to be. I think the problem can never really be fully solved but after taking part in the recent survey I feel they are without a doubt aware of the issue and starting to take steps.
MFA's are nothing really new, they have been here since we joined back in summer of 2003.
I think setting a minimum cpm for your website may not work out as well as many people here may like, many will be surprised to see just how little interest there is in the property once they set a unrealistic cpm for it.
MFA's target us like there is no tomorrow
In AdWords, there is no way for an advertiser to "target" a specific content network site.
I think setting a minimum cpm for your website may not work out as well as many people here may like, many will be surprised to see just how little interest there is in the property once they set a unrealistic cpm for it.
Yes, I suspect you are correct. Many people around here don't seem to understand the auction market that AdWords runs. People talk of "how much the keywords go for in my market" and then complain if the amount they get per click is lower. But keywords aren't commodities like oil or wheat or pork bellies, where there are thousands of sellers and thousands of buyers for essentially the same product. There is no "market price" for a keyword that you can look up like you can look up the market price of a bushel of corn. For a typical keyword, the amounts paid by advertisers might be $0.80 (position 1), $0.65 (2), $0.55 (3), $0.50 (4), $0.30 (5), <$0.20 (positions 6 through 15). If the publisher were to exclude ads paying less than $0.65 out of a belief that this is the "market price", he or she may find public service/charity ads soon appearing.
I think the negatives are multiplied when the owner of such a site purchases ads via AdWords to send people directly to those pages - often by misleading ad text.
When MFAs were just floating around in cyberspace they were a bit annoying but really didn't affect my site. It's the adsense ads leading to MFAs that are the problem. Actually even worse are the ads to give aways, surveys and more. I suspect a shady motive when I see ads like this. I don't want to annoy my visitors with any of these sorts of ads.
In addition I agree the minimun cpm idea wouldn't work for some of us. I don't want to lose the ads from small businesses related to my topics. They may not pay as much but they are so well targeted that I suspect they get more clicks.
I think the problem can never really be fully solved but after taking part in the recent survey I feel they are without a doubt aware of the issue and starting to take steps.
For some people, MFA's on their site doesn't seem to be a problem at all. If they earn something off the ad, it doesn't matter what is being advertised or where the ad leads.
Those people, and those who do see MFA's as a problem on their site could both be served well if AdSense would just give publishers the option of pre-approving ads before they appear and the option of blocking an advertiser's entire inventory of ads.
I don't think that would "fully" solve the problem - very few problems are ever fully solved - but I would think it would eliminate the problem to the extent that most publishers would be content on the issue.
FarmBoy
In AdWords, there is no way for an advertiser to "target" a specific content network site.er, um,... Ever heard of site targetting?
Actually even worse are the ads to give aways, surveys and more. I suspect a shady motive when I see ads like this.
You're right to be suspicious. Based on my research, I have found universally that these sites end up spamming people that sign up with from 100 up to 400 spams per week.
I block all the free offer sites immediately. No matter what they pay - it is an advertiser and a business model that I do not care to support with my web sites.
er, um,... Ever heard of site targetting?
I just looked at AdWords, and you're right! I knew you could exclude sites but I didn't know you could request sites. Surprising.
The FTC Act prohibits unfair or deceptive advertising in any medium. That is, advertising must tell the truth and not mislead consumers. A claim can be misleading if relevant information is left out or if the claim implies something that's not true.
I wonder if a "3 Best Sites for Widgets" ad would be considered unfair or deceptive by the FTC?
FarmBoy
I personally have 3 years of experience running Adsense in certain sectors where the quality of the page is admittedly not that high (not so much content), thus generating high CTR. The -leading companies- in that sector have consistently had their ads in the top slots on the site for -all these years-.
Why? Simple, they want traffic. The new visitor they gain is worth the 5 to 10 cents a click. What is so hard to understand about this?
For those of you who want to play "Team Adsense: World Police", mind your own businesses. It's a democratic system and those Adwords publishers who don't want to play ball with a specific publisher have increasing numbers of options to opt out of doing business with them.
Just because your business can't balance the cost of a click vs. a new visitor doesn't mean others can't. This is a capitalist system, not a communist.
For those of you who want to play "Team Adsense: World Police", mind your own businesses. It's a democratic system and those Adwords publishers who don't want to play ball with a specific publisher have increasing numbers of options to opt out of doing business with them.Like Google, we would prefer a more scalable solution. Blocking all of your sites at once is much easier than blocking each site individually. This is a medium where we can express that opinion and discuss these options. Some of us care where we send our visitors more than we care about your advertisers.
we would prefer a more scalable solution. Blocking all of your sites at once is...
If anyone thinks this idea of blocking by pub id would be any kind of real answer to their MFA worries I think they would be sadly disappointed with the probable results.
Yes, you might nab a few inexperienced MFA pubs, but I doubt you'd even disrupt the lunchtime chatter of the pros.
Yes, you might nab a few inexperienced MFA pubs, but I doubt you'd even disrupt the lunchtime chatter of the pros.It will make it much harder to run multiple MFA's because it is much harder to get new Adsense accounts than it is to build new websites.
I doubt you'd even disrupt the lunchtime chatter of the pros.
That type situation falls into the "doesn't add much to the web" category and serves to frustrate or diminishes the web experience of someone who lands on one of those URL's.
I think the negatives are multiplied when the owner of such a site purchases ads via AdWords to send people directly to those pages - often by misleading ad text.This is the real issue with MFA's, not that they exist or how many there are.
On the contrary I've found G VERY willing to bump off MFAs once they are notified of them, afterall they ARE against their TOS. I'd say they bump at least 75% of the ones submitted within a week. I understand most of the time they give the owner a chance to 'shape-up'. In fact I USED to send them so many that they sent me a special e-mail address to send them to. The only way I come accross them usually is because they are scraping our content - so in the future DON'T SCRAPE OUR (OR ANYONE'S) CONTENT and you probably won't get reported - at least by us.
I've also mentioned numerous times to GAd, without success as yet, about monetarily fining or penalizing the following types, both probably illegal to begin with:
1. The 'take a survey for free stfuff' sites, which are actually mega-affiliaters forcing you to BUY stuff from their affiliates for thousands of dollars, and then when you get to the last screen to supposedly claim your free trip to la-la-land, they 'poof!' send you to another site like their own to start all over.
and
2. The blithering idiot sites which generate the ad nauseum "New or Used dead cats! Get them while they're warm!" ads, which unfortunately do NOT (bummer) sell everything they are advertising.
Interesting, I had the impression that Google was not responding to these reports.
Has this decreased the number of scrapers scraping your site or do more just keep coming?
I'd say they bump at least 75% of the ones submitted within a week... The only way I come accross them usually is because they are scraping our content...
Is AdSense removing these sites because of a scraping/copyright issue or because they are MFA's.
My experience in reporting MFA's is the report seems to disappear into a black hole. But when I report a copyright issue, it gets prompt attention.
FarmBoy
I saw a few that do.
I quit reporting sites as I felt it a big waste of time to do as they never took them down...:( Some are still going and going and going---
Ann
Maybe if we report some of them as violating the FTC rules instead of Googles TOS it would get faster action....if they are actually breaking them.
I think you would need to make that report to the FTC and not to Google.
I imagine there would be some consequences to anyone who did that.
FarmBoy
User lands on legitimate website.
Clicks on AdSense MFA link.
Clicks on other AdSense MFA link.
Clicks on other AdSense MFA link.
Clicks on other AdSense MFA link.
Clicks on other AdSense MFA link.
Clicks on other AdSense MFA link...
...you get the idea!
User lands on legitimate website.
Clicks on AdSense MFA link.
Clicks on other AdSense MFA link.
Clicks on other AdSense MFA link.
Clicks on other AdSense MFA link.
Clicks on other AdSense MFA link.
Clicks on other AdSense MFA link...
Sadly, I think your presentation there is actually a bit too optimistic. The reality will quite likely be:
The Future of AdSense:
User makes a query on google.com.
User clicks an AdWords-ad in the right hand column of the SERP.
User lands on MFA website.
Clicks on AdSense MFA link.
Clicks on other AdSense MFA link.
Clicks on other AdSense MFA link.
Clicks on other AdSense MFA link.
Clicks on other AdSense MFA link.
Clicks on other AdSense MFA link...
Those of us that are actually creating content? MFA is going to remove our traffic entirely eventually ....
Not in the short term, anyway!
That isn't even the definition I would use for MFA. I would call a MFA site any site that is designed purely to promote ad clicks. Yes, I realize that includes half the people here.
Well we ALL want to promote ad clicks. Just a question of how blantant it gets.
I usually design sites mixing content, affiliate links, and adsense.
I would call an MFA a site that shows MY affiliate links (instead of their own - LOL) along with adsense.
